Are we all relational communists? Free love ... what an oxymoron. Rather a case of "who's paying", but more about that below. Communism ... I can see the idealistic attraction of communism. Communism has outrage against exploitation framed in a subjective morality. Theoretically it operates through the power of human altruism, but ultimately fails because altruism is weaker than selfishness, and so ends up bringing the masses to a lowest common denominator all for the privilege of a few (not unlike western capitalism). Christianity ... very close to communism, think of the golden rule! Christianity is rooted in a relational truth under the authority of a God who gives us the ultimate relationship enhancer - free will. Of course, that's where where problems arise as we play outside the blueprint and use the freedom to ignore the relationship, make our own rules, and let selfishness triumph. All these approaches to life - Christianity, communism, capitalism, democracy, monarchies, dictatorships, military councils, religious government - all have their rules. Life has rules. Rules are an inevitable result when you have structure in a sea of chaos (actually, even chaos has rules which raises some interesting side thoughts). But we make a huge mistake when we think the rules are the end point: rules are only an expression of the underlying intent. The law of marriage expresses an underlying and inherent nature of human partnership. The rules of communism express an ideology. The rules of Christianity (theoretically) express a love relationship. The rule of free love is that you may not put any constraints on me. Like it or not, we live by rules, even if they're the paradoxical rule of "I will have no rules", or that you must "tolerate everything except intolerance" (my personal pet hate). So to "free love". Love requires rules. Else where's the freedom? To love someone is an action built on a decision motivated sometimes by feeling, sometimes by a morality. Anyone who has been in a relationship longer than the hormonal stage of lust knows this ... the Hollywood dilution of love as a "happily ever after" is not an experienced reality. Relationship is built on rules, rules of the "game" where we can strive to reach for that peak of truth; relationship. Make my own rules, and I have a recipe for conflict. Break the rules, and I break the relationship. Break the relationship and I cause harm, not just to the other person, but I harm my own nature as a relational creature. Free love ... huh. Love is darned expensive! So then, what is the personal response of Christianity, Communism, and Love to things like the global wealth inequality, or to using the "rules" to make the rich richer? Make no mistake, although these are a consequence of communities, governments, and power blocs, the actions and response are by individuals, whether through apathy, passivity, or explicit engagement. This is relationship; to engage others. This is love; to desire the best for others. Why do we have so few love relationships? Aren't most of us actually relational communists? We ideologically say "everyone deserves a chance at love" while what we really mean is "I want my share out of this and don't you exploit me for your gain." Christ (not Christianity) points to a relationship that goes beyond our personal capacity to sustain. Even non-Christians and other religions acknowledge this. History shows this. But that is no excuse not to try, again and again, and again. Here stands the faith of Christianity ... you can't do it on your own.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|